D.D.C. · No. 1:26-cv-03632
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| THESENTRYORG INC. D/B/A. THE SENTRYsource ↗ filed by CLARE LOCKE LLP · No. 1:26-cv-03632 · 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking-based privacy claims split in comparables: Doe v. Bayhealth survived on confidentiality theory while Santoro v. Tower Health was dismissed with prejudice; Integris shows state-law tracking claims remain unresolved, signaling genuine doctrinal uncertainty for wiretap-style theories. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — shows tracking-technology disclosure claims can survive MTD when a duty-like relationship or statutory analog exists, relevant if Sentry's site/app shares visitor data with third parties. Main risk: Dismissal on causation/standing grounds as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where Pixel-based health-data sharing claims failed outright with prejudice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $13K–$725K Very small, atypical defendant (investigative nonprofit, not consumer tech) limits comparability; class size and theory specifics (wiretap mechanism) are inferred, not confirmed. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.D.C. | 2026-10-19 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |